Blowing coal, my diesel rant - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Blazemaster · #31 09-07-2016, 03:34 PM

I can't stand the coal rollers. There is a guy around the corner from me that drives a giant raised up f350 and you can hear his turbo whistling from 3 blocks away. I love diesels and will probably always own one as long as they are around, but I have always kept my vehicles pretty stock and never really felt the need for more power.

OM617YOTA · #32 09-07-2016, 03:40 PM

EV's are the future.

Even when the power is generated by a fossil fuel power plant, it's still lightyears ahead of burning that fossil fuel in the vehicle itself by both emissions and efficiency metrics.

Power plants are greater than 90% efficient, power transmission is greater than 90% efficient, battery chargers are greater than 90% efficient, etc etc. The very best IC's, which is the largest marine engines, barely crest 50% efficiency, and that is hugely more efficient than auto engines, which are ~30% efficient.

Pollution controls on power plants aren't restricted by size or weight the way those that must be hauled around on cars are. They operate using a steady flame instead of a series of individual explosions, which burns fuel MUCH more cleanly than cars can. They can also be located far away from population centers where pollution pools.

Lastly......................

The largest electricity consumer.............is the oil industry. It takes so much electricity to refine oil into fuel that an IC powered vehicle uses about the same amount of electricity as a similar EV.

babymog · #33 09-07-2016, 06:01 PM

EVs might be the future, unless we can come up with a better solution. EVs have been aroud for 100years but we have not been able to make them practical for the masses, and haven't come up with a storage solution that doesn't involve raping the earth for toxic metals.
Maybe hydrogen, maybe fusion, ... maybe we'll actually invent something new.

tjts1 · #34 09-07-2016, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OM617YOTA

EV's are the future.

Even when the power is generated by a fossil fuel power plant, it's still lightyears ahead of burning that fossil fuel in the vehicle itself by both emissions and efficiency metrics.

Power plants are greater than 90% efficient, power transmission is greater than 90% efficient, battery chargers are greater than 90% efficient, etc etc. The very best IC's, which is the largest marine engines, barely crest 50% efficiency, and that is hugely more efficient than auto engines, which are ~30% efficient.

Pollution controls on power plants aren't restricted by size or weight the way those that must be hauled around on cars are. They operate using a steady flame instead of a series of individual explosions, which burns fuel MUCH more cleanly than cars can. They can also be located far away from population centers where pollution pools.

Lastly......................

The largest electricity consumer.............is the oil industry. It takes so much electricity to refine oil into fuel that an IC powered vehicle uses about the same amount of electricity as a similar EV.

This can't be stressed enough. Refining crude oil into gasoline and diesel consumes more electricity than simply driving on electricity. EVs are absolutely practical for the masses today and they are cheap and getting cheaper. Diesels with their complicated emissions control systems are only getting more expensive.

We picked up a Kia Soul EV because the lease rate was outstanding and when you throw in the tax credits and cheap/free electricity it becomes a no brainer. The range is only about 80 miles but that coves 99% of our trips and then some. Charging stations are all over the place and mostly free. Even CHAdeMO fast chargers are popping up all over the place. If I ever need to drive way out of town I have my diesels (LA to SF and back on one tank). By the time this lease runs out our Tesla Model 3 should be ready and that has a 215 mile range at least. At that point I'll start thinning the internal combustion fleet in a big way. I don't see myself buying another IC vehicles from here on out. Its a shame Mercedes missed the opportunity in this market.

The arguments in favor of new diesel cars just keep getting weaker.

babymog · #35 09-07-2016, 07:00 PM

This is the problem with regulating billions of people like we all live in SoCal, ... many of us don't, and many of us drive 50miles to work in the snow and dark, with lights, wipers, heaters, defrosters running and that 80mile range is no longer 80 miles, won't even get us to work where we by the way, can't charge.
I drove my first EV in 1975, love them, have run rechargable mowers for 15years, love the concept of EV but it simply doesn't work for me nor for millions of others. I'd like it to, a good extended range EV could work, but then I'm just driving a gas burner with lots of batteries. I've rented several hypbrids also, the fuel mileage IMO is not impressive, got the same mileage in a Sonata hypbrid as my ML, ... and won't need batteries in a couple years.
BTDT, have friends with Model Ss, have discussed the many ins and outs of EV with my contemporaries in the EPA and the electric vehicle industry at seminars and conferences, and many of them also agree that the technology and power generation needs more development before EVs are ready to replace ic engines, ... except for people in SoCal with reasonably short commutes and 2nd vehicles ... but they should probably be using mass transit anyway.
I'll keep driving diesels, which the EPA has calculated as having a smaller carbon footprint than gasoline, keep pushing for CNG and hydrogen in trucking, and keep dreaming of the day that an EV is practical for me, an average Engineer in the Midwest.

tjts1 · #36 09-07-2016, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babymog

This is the problem with regulating billions of people like we all live in SoCal, ... many of us don't, and many of us drive 50miles to work in the snow and dark, with lights, wipers, heaters, defrosters running and that 80mile range is no longer 80 miles, won't even get us to work where we by the way, can't charge.

Oh I agree completely. 80 mile compliance EV are a temporary stop gap. I certainly wouldn't buy one long term thats why we leased it. But the 200 mile Chevy Bolt and 215 mile Tesla Model 3 are going onto the market this year and next year. 200 mile range will cover the vast majority of driving needs for the vast majority of drivers, even those living in cold climates. And these are just the first cheap 200 mile EVs of many. Thats why I don't see a future in diesels and eventually gasoline cars. The EV technology is getting cheaper very quickly while diesel is getting more expensive. Also I think you'll start to see a lot of cities start to ban internal combustion engines. Thats going to drive a lot more people away from IC. It might seem like a niche market for now but I think EVs will become more mainstream while diesel cars will slowly disappear, even in Europe. Any manufacturer that chooses to ignore this trend now is doing so at its own peril.

babymog · #37 09-07-2016, 08:41 PM

You mean like the diesel ban in New Delhi?

Hydrogen is still a good fuel, provided it isn't made from natural gas (most currently is), and a small gas turbine series hybrid or extended range EV would be my dream ride, ... Someday.

Mxfrank · #38 09-07-2016, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjts1

This can't be stressed enough. Refining crude oil into gasoline and diesel consumes more electricity than simply driving on electricity.

I'm all for green energy, controlling pollution, saving energy. But this little tidbit is untrue, and repeating over and over just doesn't make it better. Check the numbers:

1) The electricity consumed by the refining industry in 2015 was 46.86 billion KWHR's.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_capfuel_dcu_nus_a.htm

2) The total gasoline produced in the US was 140.43 billion gallons

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MGFUPUS1&f=M

3) Do the math. The number is about .3 KWHR/gallon. Not 30, not even 3, but 3/10 of a killowatt hour. And that assume that gasoline, which is maybe 60% of refinery output, accounts for 100% of the electricity consumption. When Elon Musk tells you the number is 5 KWHR, insist on seeing the math.

On an earlier point, the efficiency of most central power facilities averages around 35%. Here are statistics on how many BTU's are required to generate 1 KWHR (equiv to 3412 BTU's) using various fuels:

SAS Output

You can do the math. Other than hydro power, the alternatives are even less efficient, and not really improving. Solar voltaic is around 12%, stripped of hype. Wind is around 26%. Nor are they zero impact: replacing all the nuclear powerplants in the US with "clean, efficient, renewable energy" would require covering a land area equivalent to Maryland. except we'd only want mountain tops and south facing slopes.

Again, I'm not against improving the environment, but if the numbers don't work, they don't work.

tjts1 · #39 09-07-2016, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mxfrank

I'm all for green energy, controlling pollution, saving energy. But this little tidbit is untrue, and repeating over and over just doesn't make it better. Check the numbers:

1) The electricity consumed by the refining industry in 2015 was 46.86 billion KWHR's.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_capfuel_dcu_nus_a.htm

2) The total gasoline produced in the US was 140.43 billion gallons

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MGFUPUS1&f=M

3) Do the math. The number is about .3 KWHR/gallon. Not 30, not even 3, but 3/10 of a killowatt hour. And that assume that gasoline, which is maybe 60% of refinery output, accounts for 100% of the electricity consumption. When Elon Musk tells you the number is 5 KWHR, insist on seeing the math.

On an earlier point, the efficiency of most central power facilities averages around 35%. Here are statistics on how many BTU's are required to generate 1 KWHR (equiv to 3412 BTU's) using various fuels:

SAS Output

You can do the math. Other than hydro power, the alternatives are even less efficient, and not really improving. Solar voltaic is around 12%, stripped of hype. Wind is around 26%. Nor are they zero impact: replacing all the nuclear powerplants in the US with "clean, efficient, renewable energy" would require covering a land area equivalent to Maryland. except we'd only want mountain tops and south facing slopes.

Again, I'm not against improving the environment, but if the numbers don't work, they don't work.

In your simplistic math you ignore that refineries also purchased steam, coal and natural gas to generate electricity on site. The conclusion you draw from the EIA data is false.

Mxfrank · #40 09-07-2016, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjts1

In your simplistic math you ignore that refineries also purchased steam, coal and natural gas to generate electricity on site. The conclusion you draw from the EIA data is false.

If you add all of that up, it would be around .75 KWHR per gallon, still far less than Musk's 5 KWHR. And again, this is assuming that 100% of refinery energy consumption is devoted to gasoline production, which it isn't. For example, steam is used for natural gas EIA presents the numbers, which have to be regarded as correct. As for the rest, I've always found that long division works for near-earth calculations.

Stretch · #41 09-08-2016, 04:53 AM

I'm also all for electric vehicles (especially ones that drive themselves) BUT only when battery technology is much much greener and longer lasting.

I think it is absolutely crazy that half a vehicle and potentially more than the vehicle's worth needs to be replaced after 5 years. (OK generalisation but those rare metal things that add a serious amount of the weight to the vehicle do not last long)

t walgamuth · #42 09-08-2016, 06:04 AM

The 200 mile range of all electric vehicles is a killer for me. ...and it seems they have little more range than the electric cars of the early 1900s did, which is hard for me to grasp when I see how powerful and long lasting the new lithium batteries are for other things.

vstech · #43 09-08-2016, 06:56 AM

Idk...

Biomass diesel could remove the vehicle load from fossil fuels...

Electric power can be cleaner, but not until THEY stop needing fossil fuels to operate.

Hydrogen and CNG are fine.

I want my Mr. Fusion...

Stretch · #44 09-08-2016, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

The 200 mile range of all electric vehicles is a killer for me. ...and it seems they have little more range than the electric cars of the early 1900s did, which is hard for me to grasp when I see how powerful and long lasting the new lithium batteries are for other things.

I'm not at all impressed with lithium batteries.

Used under constant load they heat up and run down pretty quickly. Their life expectancy seems to be around the five year mark if you are lucky. Laptop batteries last about 4 years with me. Cordless drills - Bosch / Makita (so not the cheapest ****) - last for about 4 years with me too. Mobile phone batteries? (Don't get me started)

Stretch · #45 09-08-2016, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vstech

...

I want my Mr. Fusion...

I think society has gotten the Hollywood bug.

Back to the Future / Start Trek etc has raised our expectations from technology. Our desires and expectations are distorted from what in the real world is achievable.

I encourage progress - I encourage cleaner fuels - but it has to be done within the constraints of what is possible.

Even though VW have been shown to be "big and evil" with their software cheat I think the most important message in this case is that legislation is out of step with technology.

Back to the thread - bell ends who provoke the legislators with bellowing plumes of black diesel smoke need to be punished individually rather than all users of diesel because at the moment "we" can't do with out it.